Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 10/18] bpftool: Document support for multi-split BTF
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Date: 2026-09-01 17:12:38
Also in:
bpf
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] The synopsis in the manual page incorrectly implies a maximum of two base BTF options. - [Low] The interactive help text for the `btf` subcommand was not updated to reflect multiple `-B` options. -- commit 42ebee481eb7237c0598d57bed53fc37d0f50a61 Author: Alan Maguire [off-list ref] Subject: bpftool: Document support for multi-split BTF This commit documents the ability to pass multiple levels of split BTF using the "-B base_btf" options.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-btf.rst b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-btf.rst index cf75a7fa2d6bc..60c46748b8663 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-btf.rst +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-btf.rst@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ SYNOPSIS **bpftool** [*OPTIONS*] **btf** *COMMAND* -*OPTIONS* := { |COMMON_OPTIONS| | { **-B** | **--base-btf** } } +*OPTIONS* := { |COMMON_OPTIONS| | { **-B** | **--base-btf** [ **-B** | **--base-btf** ] } }
[Severity: Low]
Does this syntax incorrectly imply a maximum of two base BTF options? The text
below states that multiple base BTF objects can be passed, but the synopsis
seems to limit it to two.
Additionally, should the interactive help text be updated to match?
Looking at tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c:do_help(), it still shows:
" " HELP_SPEC_OPTIONS " |\n"
" {-B|--base-btf} }\n"
which lacks the documented multi-split BTF option syntax.
[ ... ]
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260901165757.801449-1-alan.maguire@oracle.com?part=10